Rich Kids can spare some of their inheritance

[Seattle Husker]

You keep making these pronouncements like you are the authority about what other people should and shouldn't do with their money or what is the acceptable way for a person to get money (beyond ethics or morality). You sound like a socialist dictator. Kind of like China's social scoring where a person's ability to buy and sell will be linked to "how socially beneficial their behavior is".

@BrntOrngStmpeDe clearly doesn't need my defense but inferring they support China level social engineering is an absurd extreme to carry their argument. Its a slippery slope argument that challenges the credibility of libertarian arguments.

 

[ShAArk92]

Its a slippery slope argument that challenges the credibility of libertarian arguments.

perhaps ... but at least you admit those taxes you mentioned (or maybe it was BO?) ... are intended to direct decisions in a free society ... as it becomes "self expanding" for the government.

Want an electric car? Great ... go buy one. Shouldn't get a 4K tax break because of something YOU want. Want a propane water heater rather than electric? GREAT ... but don't use that purchase to be qualified for a tax break.

 

[Seattle Husker]

perhaps ... but at least you admit those taxes you mentioned (or maybe it was BO?) ... are intended to direct decisions in a free society ... as it becomes "self expanding" for the government.

Want an electric car? Great ... go buy one. Shouldn't get a 4K tax break because of something YOU want. Want a propane water heater rather than electric? GREAT ... but don't use that purchase to be qualified for a tax break.

The difference between you andcI is that you see the Government as a 3rd party, maybe even the direct opposition, trying to curtail your freedoms. Wheras I view the Government as us. We live in a Representative Democracy where laws are enacted by the people we elect. You don't like that the city dwellers have an impact over you anymore than I like that a large swath of land albeit 6 million fewer voters have so thoroughly effed up the environment, foreign policy and most importantly our national debt during a good economic period.

Still, we get to vote, lobby, voice our opinion and generally try to effectuate change.

I will concede that I have grave concerns over the cost of programs being put forth by the extremes of the Democratic party. My fiscal conservative nature would rather limit spending on social programs, military with a preference for higher taxes as long as our debt remains so high.

 

[ShAArk92]

Wheras I view the Government as us

OK ... now we are getting somewhere.

reconsider this.

the NATION is us ... we are not "the government"

"the government" is a necessary evil every time, which is why it's supposed to be quite restricted in its scope ... which also means we each need to discipline ourselves, SELF-governing ... which is The Great Experiment.

So when you say "the government" ... a person's being self-governed --- then that's an accurate statement.

If you think those 535 in Congress, the 2 in the White House, and the 9 in the SCOTUS is "us" ... you are SORELY mistaken, my friend.

have so thoroughly effed up the environment,

are you kidding me? now you depart hotel reality. Do you need to be shown the difference in the environment between rural America and urban America???

Perhaps it's time you rent a car, enterprise delivers, so they say, and drive an hour/two outside your cosmopolitan digs ... or ... as Chris LeDoux sang ...

if all y'all move out to the country, then the country won't be country anymore ... HOLD ON!


Seriously ... our nation's problems don't come from the country.

 

[Seattle Husker]

If you think those 535 in Congress, the 2 in the White House, and the 9 in the SCOTUS is "us" ... you are SORELY mistaken, my friend.

We'll have to agree to disagree. The problem as I see it is that the Supreme Court threw in Corporations into the "us" category which greatly concentrated influence towards thise with $$$, lots of it. Still, I'm an idealist and know thats those politicians still need to be voted in to keep their hold on power. I loathe the political parties because they work with the $$$ interests.

are you kidding me? now you depart hotel reality. Do you need to be shown the difference in the environment between rural America and urban America???

I'm from rural Nebraska. I grew up working the summers setting irrigation tubes at 5am and 8pm while clearing borrow pits and ditches of debris in between.

Concentrations of people have unavoidable environmental consequences. It's the Urban cities trying to lead the way on environmental issues because they are experiencing the problems first hand. This is why they lead on fuel economy standards while simultaneously passing massive levies funding mass transportation. For example, municipalities attempt to social engineer people into mass transportation options by building bike lanes onto every street and littering the city with cheap bike rentals.

That doesn't mean those same urban dwellers can't be concerned about mining companies polluting our waterways. Afterall, much of that water flows into reservoirs that we ultimately consume. It doesn't mean we shouldn't care about drilling and logging in National Parks, a community resource. Energy production is a huge challenge for the future. Balancing environmental concerns with energy production may be the single greatest challenge facing the millennial generation. Promoting alternative energy platforms, especially in pilot programs was hugely beneficial to proving their efficacy.

 

[ShAArk92]

Supreme Court threw in Corporations into the "us" category

SCOTUS, despite my moniker, is NOT king. There have been plenty of bad SCOTUS decisions ... not only my opinion but that of subseqent SCOTUS ... so ...

Of the people by the people doesn't mean it IS the people. ever. Now, as Ben Franklin so famously answered the woman who asked "what do we have, sir"

"A Republic, Madam, if you can keep it."

the condition was the catch, wasn't it? And we've proven we are unable to "keep it." and the more we so demonstrate, the less "the government" is US.

Urban population doesn't own the market on "good." In fact, most of the bad in society comes from the urban population; whether that's refuse, or whatever. Since you are from rural Nebraska, you know it's in the farmer/rancher's best interest to be a conservationist with the land and the VAAST majority are that very thing.

It's the presumption from folks who have never set foot off of pavement/concrete which invite the misconception of rural life as well as the ideal THEY have the best answer for everything.

We stipulate you know more about mass transit and its need. Beyond that ... meh.

small communities are far superior in every way. they simply are. Not just because I live rurally, but because we help a neighbor ... we know that neighbor. We don't first think "gotta go get from the gubmint" ... those in need KNOW those who are assisting the needy.

Our "national forests" would be better off if they were State parks ... but hey.

All the best Seattle ... it's time to venture into the Abyss called Austin ... to watch the Horns (the main reason for this board) take-on Kansas (you remember them, right? Your former neighbor???)

for a little bit of encouragement, I'd stay home and watch on TV!

 

[Seattle Husker]

Trying to reconcile this...

It's the presumption from folks who have never set foot off of pavement/concrete which invite the misconception of rural life as well as the ideal THEY have the best answer for everything.

With this...

small communities are far superior in every way. they simply are.

Respectfully, you need a mirror. Badly.

Good luck to an injury-free 0-0 tie.

 

[ShAArk92]

Respectfully

Touché

I intended to say “what rural hasn’t caused” ... ref mass transit.

 

[Monahorns]

@BrntOrngStmpeDe clearly doesn't need my defense but inferring they support China level social engineering is an absurd extreme to carry their argument. Its a slippery slope argument that challenges the credibility of libertarian arguments.

Same **** different color. Still stinks.

 

[Monahorns]

SH,

Wheras I view the Government as us.

That is why you are wrong. . Unless you think Trump is you.

 

[Monahorns]

Senators in charge of millions. Congressmen in charge of hundreds of thousands. Thousands of career bureaucrats that were never elected and have no accountability.

That isn't "me" and it isn't "us".

 

[Monahorns]

Senators in charge of millions. Congressmen in charge of hundreds of thousands. Thousands of career bureaucrats that were never elected and have no accountability.

That isn't "me" and it isn't "us".

 

[BrntOrngStmpeDe]

You keep making these pronouncements like you are the authority about what other people should and shouldn't do with their money or what is the acceptable way for a person to get money (beyond ethics or morality). You sound like a socialist dictator. Kind of like China's social scoring where a person's ability to buy and sell will be linked to "how socially beneficial their behavior is".

"pronouncements"....you mean I keep stating my opinion...yes I do.

So am I to infer that you don't advocate for ANY limits to personal behaviors? Cause it sounds like you believe the government placing any limits to personal behavior is tantamount to 'socialism'.

I think keeping a small portion of our society from attaining an aristocracy-like status by virtue of inheritance is the ethical and moral thing to do.

 

[BrntOrngStmpeDe]

You get my point. I don't think the government should be involved in social engineering. They don't have the wisdom, intelligence, or morals to tell me or the average citizen what to do. They need to butt out.

I do agree that taxing behavior is better than criminalizing, but taxation itself is based on coercion.

All...ALL....rules are some form of coercion to some portion of the society. Limits to abortion...are coercion to some people. Speed limits/tickets....are coercion to some people. Registering for the draft....to some people. Heck, my son would say that me grounding him is coercive. All societies since the beginning of time have imposed penalties in various forms to coerce behavior the society does or does not want.

It has NEVER, EVER been a choice of having coercion or not. Not since the beginning of humanity. It has ALWAYS been a choice of the tool you use for coercion and the outcome intended. I think a tax penalty is the one that still allows for the most freedom. You still have the choice to do what you want, you just pay a premium for doing so. I also think that a rule that keeps small slivers of our population from attaining elite levels of unearned wealth is a positive intent for a country that stands for meritocracy.

 

[ShAArk92]

Limits to abortion

gotta laugh to keep from crying at that one.

Your point about behaviors from rules is not wrong ... but to attribute that to a tax code to properly motivate certain "approved" behaviors is where you jump the tracks, my friend. The behaviors by rule ... restrict CRIMINAL activity. That's freedom.

the behaviors by TAX ... influence based upon what some lobbied bureaurcrat thinks should be the proper way to do. That's not freedom.

 

[ShAArk92]

I also think that a rule that keeps small slivers of our population from attaining elite levels of unearned wealth is a positive intent for a country that stands for meritocracy.

actually this is what you feel.

If you thought about it, you'd realize that the merit which earned the wealth also produced the progeny ... it's the earners, not the government's and not even society's. You're impugning your morality upon the earner ... which is why the tax option reduces freedom. It's a purchased motivator from someone who believes all must be compelled to act as they would act.

... and it's usually a straw man ... because in this case ... what are the odds you/your benefactors will be subject to this tax??? see?

... the income tax will only affect the top 2% wage earners in the nation ... so they said in 1917. Look at us NOW! aren't we so great?

 

[Chop]

The original thread title gets at the nature of private property. What is it that makes something yours and gives you ownership of it. For real property, is it the fact that the County deed records say you are the owner, therefore you are the owner? That’s more or less it for real property. But conceptually, this means that something is yours because the sovereign says it is yours. Same with registering your ownership of a car. Also, your real property will be taken by the government if you don’t pay property taxes, so it’s sort of like a lease that defaults back to the government for failure to pay taxes.

In Merry Olde England it really was that a property was yours, at the pleasure (sometimes the whim) of the sovereign—the King. Blackacre was yours until the sovereign said it was not. All property was initially “earned” by the right of conquest. That part is also true for the US.

Conceptually, if something is yours, then don’t you have the right to give it away to whomever you choose to give it away to? If not, then is it really your private property to begin with? There are some fundamental questions underlying all this that I don’t think people are considering.

Do you only really have the "right" to the things you earned from the sweat of your own brow? Then investment proceeds and windfalls should not be yours, same with inheritances. This sort of thinking underlies much of Marxism.

 

[Chop]

Also, it’s unclear how much the Founding Fathers cared about setting up a meritocracy. They cared deeply about protecting individual rights including property rights. But many, if not most, would be horrified by the idea that one shouldn’t be able to pass down massive financial legacies to their issue. Many of them left massive estates to their issue.

Of course, there’s also a line of thinking out there that says it doesn’t matter at all what the Founding Fathers thought...

 

[HornHuskerDad]

Thousands of career bureaucrats that were never elected and have no accountability.

And that is one of the key problems with our government. These career bureaucrats are - or at least think they are - untouchable. And the day-to-day decisions they make in executing our laws have an enormous impact on our budget.

 

[Chop]

When you take away the right to receive inheritance, you take away the right to give inheritance. That is a taking of the property from the donor. It's not just the non-working slacker kid that you're taking away $ from, it's also his or her hard working dad or grandad who made the $ and wants to give it to whomever he chooses.

I've known some trust fund kids, and on average they struck me as pretty good folks. I don't disparage them or the fact they didn't earn their $, and I especially don't want to take away their ancestors' rights to distribute their $ the way they see fit.

 

[Horn6721]

Still waiting for someone to explain why it is ok for the gov't to have a say in money you earned and already paid taxes on.

 

[ShAArk92]

Still waiting for someone to explain why it is ok for the gov't to have a say in money you earned and already paid taxes on.

here's the answer:

Of course, there’s also a line of thinking out there that says it doesn’t matter at all what the Founding Fathers thought...

A "living document" is the Constitution ... Law of the Land by edict of the robed 9. (unless of course those 9 were nominated by a GOP, then they're only to respond with only the word of the Constitution, not INTERPRET it.

 

[Monahorns]

A "living document" is the Constitution

Our worst or maybe 2nd worst President popularized that idea in the 1910s. Woodrow Wilson. The same guy who tried to marry his cousin and loved being on sports teams so he could write team constitutions. He like ones he wrote. Just not ones someone else wrote. Also a raging racist and KKK sympathizer. And Democrat.

 

[Monahorns]

So am I to infer that you don't advocate for ANY limits to personal behaviors? Cause it sounds like you believe the government placing any limits to personal behavior is tantamount to 'socialism'.

No. You shouldn't. I am for laws securing safety and property for people. Laws should restrict the actions of Party A against Party B. Protect B from the predations of A.

What you are proposing is a predation on B by A with A being the government.

See the opposite nature? Protection vs Predation? Of the individual, that is key. Individual rights and protections versus laws against individuals for the sake of the collective which you are proposing. That is Communism. Marx and Engels would be proud.

 

[ShAArk92]

And Democrat.

and a Sec State named Philander Knox!

 

[Chop]

Our worst or maybe 2nd worst President popularized that idea in the 1910s. Woodrow Wilson. The same guy who tried to marry his cousin and loved being on sports teams so he could write team constitutions. He like ones he wrote. Just not ones someone else wrote. Also a raging racist and KKK sympathizer. And Democrat.

Woodrow Wilson was The Godfather of all American progressives. The nearest thing we’ve seen to his governmental philosophy in action since his passing: Obama. (which is a bit ironic due to Obama’s ethnic background)

 

[Chop]

Progressivism views the Constitution as an impediment to be worked around, ignored, twisted to suit one’s policy agenda, and ultimately discarded. This is straight from Wilson.

 

[Chop]

Of course some pragmatism must be applied in cases of true national emergency. As Justice Jackson said--the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

But be very wary of those for whom everything seems to be an emergency (true in all contexts, not just politics...)

 

[Monahorns]

Doesn't the constitution or some other laws give the President discretion to act when there is an emergency? I think I have read about that recently. There are provisions that allow for quick action in unique circumstances.

The big question is that in 243 years of being a country, how many actual national emergencies have occurred that would necessitate a President to act extra-Constitutionally?

 

[HornHuskerDad]

Progressivism views the Constitution as an impediment to be worked around, ignored, twisted to suit one’s policy agenda, and ultimately discarded.

And this is exactly the agenda of the current batch of progressives. They want to implement their programs at all costs - if the Constitution gets in the way, they will try to find a way around it. We've got to stop them - or the country as we know it will go down the tubes.